All over BigSoccer you see the battlecry of how soccer is growing in this country. Attendance thread people point out ticket sales are up. Expansion threads point to new teams and owners to illustrate their take on growth. The Addidas deal shows progress made on the business side. Bricks and mortar of new stadiums show the league is putting down its roots. The level of play is getting better and so on. These are obviously all great things and do in fact show growth. Lots of it. On the other hand, there is much less evidence showing that the sport of soccer is growing. The drastic drop of fan bases in Dallas and Boston are well chronicled here. Barely a few thousand could be bothered to attend Colorado's only playoff game. I see first hand METRO's fan base slipping. And so on through the league. In more cases than not, it seems that the hardcore base of fans in most MLS towns are shrinking, not growing. Because it is more intangible and harder to quantify, this important element of growth often goes undiscussed. Which brings me to my question. Is MLS doing a good job selling the sport of soccer??
yea they are but people in this country people are not interested in soccer like people in europe are. We got 3 major sports (football, baseball, basketball) and people just dont care about soccer right now.
MLS is a long term project. There won't be instant success overnight. Once each team has its own stadium and owner, and the league is making money, then it will become a major league. There are tons of soccer fans here already. I've said it a million times, but if every soccer fan in this country was an MLS fan, the league would be huge. Right now, maybe a third are MLS fans.
I agree with both of the above posts... But they are both reasons why MLS isn't as popular as it is now. There are a million other reasons for this too, I am sure. I am curious about wether you guys think MLS does a good job at selling the game?? Its not an easy job for the reasons that your guys point out, but that said, is MLS doing a good job selling soccer???
Are you saying MLS is a food ambassador of the sport and doing the best they can? Or just giving them a pass because there are other sports in this country that people are more focused on?
While the general public might not care...there are millions of soccer fans that don't care either, and this is a problem. There are enough soccer fans to actively and successfully support a league, but MLS still has a lot to do to prove to me that they can take advantage. Now I don't claim to be a marketing genius with all the answers, but I do know quite a few people that, like me, are huge soccer fans, but (here's where they differ from me) still couldn't be bothered with MLS. The problems they have with the league are the same concerns some of us have, however they don't tolerate it, they just ignore it. Quality of play is one issue, as some just don't see the value in following soccer if it isn't absolut top-flight Europe. The posssible solutions to this problem are limited as money is the real reason we don't have star-studded rosters like the giants across the pond. Having said this, I believe that people could get over this a lot easier if they actually gave the league a chance, as the play isn't that bad. In my experience most people who complain about the play haven't really watched enough of it and when they do...they realize it has its worth. In addition, this problem rectifies itself incrementally each season as the league grows older and better. The other issue, and potentially what keeps people from even giving MLS a shot is its image. Image is very important in pro sports, and MLS still hasn't figured out how to make itself come across as MAJOR League. There are tons of things you could point at that encourages an image of cheesiness...lack of desirable merchandising, having slowly been relegated from an ABC/ESPN/espn2 contract to soleley espn2, too much of a youth soccer feel in the stadium on gamedays, even expansion isn't helping too much. I know growth and new investors is crucial but c'mon they're putting a team in a city that already has one, and SLC is a niche not a market. This league already caters to enough niche's. Not to mention THAT name. Ugh, you think soccer purists aren't going to hear that and laugh? I mean this dude checketts is rich and he can't find someone to come up with a classy, traditional sounding soccer name...that isn't a blatant ripoff or isnt' taken out of the context of the culture its used in. Herein lies the entire problem of MLS marketing, it doesn't know who to attract. MLS seems set on getting that family, youth soccer crowd. Hope it works cause it seems like that is the strategy. Its a problem that the league won't try and get the soccer fans instead, considering it is a soccer league. Seems like a no-brainer, but i guess im missing something (or am I?). Not to mention soccer fans will actually care about the success of a team like sports fans are supposed to, rather than being casual observers for one night a summer like most of the kids and their parents that attend. A little more excitement out of people at the stadiums certainly wouldn't hurt. I often wonder if those at MLS HQ give the sport of soccer enough credit. It seems that they truly believe that the only interestested and potential fans of soccer are kids who play. They continue to cater to this least common denominator. They simply don't understand that if the atmosphere is exciting and the games are good the sport will sell itself...I really believe that. American's aren't as ignorant about soccer as they used to be, and I think more people appreciate it now than ever. What MLS needs to do more of is reminding soccer fans that they have hometown teams and that if they love the sport and need a "soccer fix" their MLS team can be just as exciting, if not more so, than flipping on FSW and watching two random teams from France. MLS needs to show that both the games and the gameday, in-stadium experience, for pro-soccer can be at least on par with what soccer purists expect. Soccer fans want to see fans holding team scarves...not their 8-year old's hand. They want to hear people beating drums and chanting, not some corny announcer all game. Soccer elitists want to follow teams with fanatics in the stands, not an in-stadium childcare plan. These are simple things that would make a world of difference. The on-field product has become more sophisticated and refined in the last nine years, its time for the fans and marketing to do the same.
MLS is appealing mostly to youth players because those players will be their fanbase when they grow up. It's a much more far-sighted view than is usual in this country. Personally I think the biggest thing that keeps Euro-fans away from MLS is the stadium situation. Even the HDC gets armpitball lines (high school or college teams play there sometimes) and the situation at places like Giants Stadium right now (complete with huge NFL logo in the center circle) is a travesty. Of course, it's a lot better than we saw last year for Chicago and Dallas. After all teams have their own stadia, and if they can resist the temptation to lease them to armpitball teams, that will have the biggest impact on the attractiveness of MLS.
Not much of a fan if lines on the field keep you from watching the "game you love". I've seen gridiron lines at Bundesliga games and Rugby lines at English games, so lines at MLS games is hardly unprecedented.
hahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa decent... And if you have a good half hour to burn, scroll up and read REV17's post. Its a good one..
It's a tough problem and they're probably doing about as well as can be expected. There's always going to be a guessing game about when spending a lot more on exciting players and advertising will bring a commensurate increase in fan attention, or when it will just be a waste of money. One largely inherent problem is that Soccer is an "un-American" sport, and hence, un-popular with those for whom Americanism is tremendously important (not-invented-here syndrome). One other question I have is about American sports' emphasis on corny team names. Certainly in Europe and elsewhere, most teams tend to rely on their geographic name, not a nickname (which is likely to be unofficial anyway, if they have one). Which makes sense: how many people follow Columbus because the team is named the "Crew" or Los Angeles because the team is named the "Galaxy" or Chicago because the team is named the "Fire"? I mean, the names are irrelevant. You follow your local team because it's local, not because of its nickname. And I don't see how the nicknames help anyway. In fact, at least in the early years, I think nicknames are more a hurdle to acceptance than anything else. They're always corny-sounding at first, even in big leagues like the NFL, MLB and NBA. I almost think they present more of a challenge to taking the league seriously: first you need to accept soccer as a serious sport, then understand that there is a U.S. soccer league, then accept that there's a team from Dallas, but even then, you still have to get so used to the name "Burn" that you stop thinking about it before you can start taking them seriously. I mean, in AYSO we always had to have a team name, as we didn't have a monopoly on some geographic area and "team number 16" doesn't sound all that exciting. But what does it really add to professional sports teams competing between major cities? Even college sports tend to emphasize the school name more than their mascot or whatever, and that seems to work quite well.
The point is that the lines on the field show a lack of respect for the "game you love." I don't watch Bundesliga often, but one question: how often do you see gridiron lines there? And how often do you see rugger lines at English games? Once in a while is one thing - but the percentage of MLS games where they are visible is way too high.
Regarding team names... I remember in 1996 reading a news story about a new soccer league being formed, and that the local team would be called the San Jose Clash. The decision to pick that name (along with others in the league) was one reason I never bothered to attend a game until 2002 when I found out that not only had the team fixed its name, it was the defending champion.
Good points. I also think the presentation on TV makes it seem more different from EPL etc. than it really is. For instance, the sound: you can hear the small crowds (particularly the very small number that may participate in songs and cheers), and the very American announcers (who tend to alternate between excessive play-by-play naming of everyone who comes near the ball to rambling on for five minutes about something completely irrelevant, all with this stand-up-comedy "I'm here to entertain you because the sport isn't interesting enough to be entertaining on its own" attitude derived, I think, from announcing intended for the very slow pace of football and baseball. I've sometimes found that just turning off the sound can make MLS matches more appealing. I wonder what it would be like with an English announcer? Not that everything needs to be just like in Europe, but I'm thinking it might work well, as they tend to be a bit more understated as well as relevant and tasteful in their comments. I'd say that without the sound on and with the teams in proper soccer-specific stadia (no gridiron lines, not 80% empty, not incredibly confined like Spartan), the play compares reasonably well to many other leagues (while still not being on the beauty level of the EPL etc.). I also agree with those that feel the mini-interviews with the coaches during the games don't add anything -- they ALWAYS sound distracted, and sending it down to Lori on the field always feels like, well, like they're getting bored with the game and think the viewers need a distraction.
I don't think you can point to one game in Colorado and say, "soccer is not growing in this country." You need to consider all forms of soccer; youth, rec, pro, amatur. Hundreds of thousands of Americans play soccer. As the league reaches more markets and gains traction in current markets you will see the growth. Friday night games have never had good attendance in CO, it is not their prefered night to play but scheduling in a football stadium can be tough. The growth of this sport needs to be measured over tens of years, not one year. The growth of the league needs to be measured over years, not one weekend.
Who's judging based on one weekend or one year? The league is TEN years old. A ten-year-old isn't a baby anymore.
When I played park district soccer at age 11-13 I didn't really play soccer. The objective of most matches was to kick the ball as far as we can to the other team's half then run to fight for possesion. Passing the ball to build up and keeping possesion was an alien concept for us. So when I watched Chicago Sting games I was bored and often wondered why they don't play like us. My playing experience was from the mid '80s but the above mentality apparently still exists to a large extent among pre high school players, at least on the park district level. So trying to sell soccer to these players is almost like trying to sell another sport because they never really understand and appreciate it.
I agree, I didn't mean to overstate the meaning one specific game. I agree with you, you have to look at the league body of work over the last 9 years. I am not sure how close you follow the league, but can you look at most MLS cities and see a fan base that is growing? Just to say its going to grow someday sounds like something to say 9 years ago. Almost a decade in, seeing of few signs of whats to come would be nice.